Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The region under consideration by this project is very important on a biodiversity point of view. It includes many different types of natural habitats, forests, wetlands, savannah… The Virunga is an iconic protected and the area has a large number of endemic species of plants and animals.
Evidence B:Virunga home to Mt Gorrila, and whole area part Albertine rift and into Congo Basin. Huge pressures - human use, long standing violence. Also is important part of shared ecosystem between Rw, Ug and DRC
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: The area that includes the Virunga is sequestrating large amounts of carbon and the proposed activities have the potential to increase the existing carbon sequestration capacity of the area.
Evidence B:Though I would assume mostly above ground C2, little below ground
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The area is well advanced in terms of the management by IPLC with the support of the provincial authorities and of the ICCN. The management includes forest and wetlands alike.
Evidence B:Parks under National gov. Most lands under de facto community and IPLC. Increased recognition of IPLC (Batwa) rights and responsibilities - they have at least 1 forest concession for sustainable management by Batwa for their benefit - nnot commercial. Important to learn from
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The proposal describes the cultural significance of the area for both the local communities and the indigenous people living there. It is illustrated by two examples.
Evidence B:Importance of Bartwa de facto traditionally managed landscapes both around Virunga but also up to ruenzori. But also important basis for really respecting IPLC conditions of Batwa and the pressures they are all under
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The poor management of the natural resources is the main threat affecting biodiversity. This is the result of poor governance, corruption, poverty and the increasing population. There is also the risk associated with recent oil exploration in the area.
Evidence B:mainly de facto traditional management only partially supported by weak state authority (violence). this combined with local people and Batwa not really involved in decision making or planning. this exacerbates existing pressure - degradation, timber, degradation, militarization of the PAs, no governance, - some of this could be resolved through this project - but I doubt if it will have much effect on military
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: There are a number of conservation activities that are IPLC led in the area. IPLC have also an established collaboration with the provincial administration and with ICCN for the co-management of natural resources in different projects taking place in the area under consideration by the project.
Evidence B:National level political support, some existing funding for this sort of IPLC approach - that is why it is important for this project to really try and make a difference in a defined geography and not spread itself too thin
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: IPLC groups involved in the area proposed for the project are already receiving an active support from the provincial administration and have an agreement with ICCN for the co-management of resources in the context of the Virunga National Park.
Evidence B:As it is DRC difficult to really say - there is Gov committment to sustainable NRM and exploitation. there are some smallish projects on the ground - implemented by NGOs and IP orgs
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: This project will build on a strong fondation of IPLC-led initiatives in the context of natural resource management. The model has the potential for replication elsewhere in the province of North Kivu or in other parts of Eastern DRC or even Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi.
Evidence B:there are some projects implemented by partners of this EoI - but it seems to be spread very thinly. Hence for this EoI focus focus - what will the outcomes be, what is the geography
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: There is a handful of IPLC-led initiatives in the area considered by the project that will complement the proposed project.
Evidence B:Implemented by partners of this EoI and are generaly small scale in nature. challenge will be to bring these separate sets of activities together in a coherent governance strategy in a reasonably defined geography
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The proposed project is based on the support to IPLC-led actions in the field of the sustainable management of natural resources both in forest and freshwater ecosystems.
Evidence B:But there is not an idea of what the outcomes will be - except in the context of specific results. I see an outcome that is something like “The governance and management of XX ICCA areas in {clear defined geographic landscape - perhaps around Virunga or Lake Edward or Ruenzoris - but not that huge area which is very insecure} secured under ICCA management” - or something like that - and then all the activities flow from there
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The proposed activities and the expected results are mostly about consultation and planning . It would be good to see more concrete activities devoted to the sustainable management of natural resources. The project proposed to address the important and sensitive issue of the increasing population in the area through family planning.
Evidence B:No clear outcome(s) - but good set of activities which need to be pulled together in a coherent ToC. So this needs some work on
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The proposed project is likely to address the main threats to biodiversity identified through IPLC-led activities.
Evidence B:Over ambitious and lack focus. If they have a strong outcome and deliver the work in a defined geography as suggested will be much stronger
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The proponent has the needed experience for implementing this project.
Evidence B:Problem - it is a set of activities with a set of indicators - which do not tell a coherent story in terms of what will be achieved. Yes capacity is important, as are income activities, as is knowledge - but what is all this for
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: The proponent mentions many different projects in detail that should constitute concrete source of co-financing but did not indicate the amount invested in these different projects.
Evidence B:And /varied from small NGO projects to larger WB type investments. the challenge will be to bring this together in synergy and make a strong implementation outcome for a defined area
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: This is well documented and includes benefits for forest and fresh-water ecosystems.
Evidence B:BUT - I think this project is aiming too high over too large an area that is very complex in terms of conservation, peoples, military, security etc. It would be a strong project if it could focus on one area ( one of Virunga, Edward, Ruenzori)
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: The information provided demonstrates that there are additional cultural and livelihoods results.
Evidence B:What is the bigger indicator that these indicators will contribute to?? At present lacks focus for ex Indicator 3 (Q13) - what does this mean in terms of action on the ground, what are the governance structures, how will their security be enhanced. Also does not include (at least not obvious) indicators for Batwa
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The proponent is confident that the project will contribute to a long-term vision for sustainability. However, we need to consider this project as an important step and not expect sustainability to be achieved in the short-term.
Evidence B:It all sounds good - but lacks focus and at present not clear on how the results will happen, how will landscape governance be enhanced, what will the management insts be? will they have the rights and resps and so forth
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: This project is well aligned with NBSAP in term of conservation priorities of forest and freshwater ecosystems and models of implementation involving IPLC.
Evidence B:Will broadly contribute to NBSAP (less clear on NDC)- but the issue is focusing on a defined area and deliver strong results/outcomes over a defined area rather than weak results over a huge area. Results and learning from Defined area can then be used for upscaling in other areas
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The proponent mentions gender in different sections of the document. A couple of IPLC groups selected as partners of the proponent are women-led and discrete activities are planned to reinforce the role of the women (and your people) in the management of the natural resources.
Evidence B:Reasonably well thought through - though will be stronger if the gender work constributes to enhance role of women in governance with rights and resps of the the ICCA areas
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The project is solid and concrete and well conceived which can be considered as the most important aspect to lead to success.
Evidence B:If they can focus on an achievable outcome(s) in a defined area - then this could be a very strong candidate for learning from to go to scale in the area. one key here is learning - communities, gov, NGOs - and this much more than M&E
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The proponent is an NGO but all the other partners (5) are IPLC groups.
Evidence B:Seems to be a mix of partners - both IPLC and NGOs; and capacity of this partnership is one key area in the project
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: CREDDHO has the right credentials to be the on-the ground leader of this project.
Evidence B:Only issue for me - is there seems to be a lack of governance (representation, accountability, institutons, participation and so forth) that will be critical for ICCA work. Also important role of participatory planning
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The proponent has five strong partner IPLC groups with experience in the management of natural resources in both forest and freshwater ecosystems.
Evidence B:A good range of IPLC partners identified (which would be trimmed down if they are to focus on one broad area). This can be brought together to enhance participatory ICCA management planning and governance
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The technical capacity of the proponent and its partners is clearly established but the group does not have experience in managing GEF funded projects.
Evidence B:Will need capacity in safeguards - but that should not be a problem. for Full proposal will need Strat Planning, good ToC, focus on geography and on ICCA But many of the parts of a good project proposal are there already - just the focus on the what and the where
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The proponent and its partners have a good experience in the financial management of projects, but the level of finance managed is still modest.
Evidence B:Looks as though they are used to having smaller projects up to 100K which might be a challenge if they get a full GEF for $2mill - but that can be catered for in good project planning
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: CREDDHO has no experience with the GEF or with any other large funding agency.
Evidence B:NA